ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2026
Adoption of intraoperative mechanomyography as a spinal decompression endpoint: A single-surgeon comparison by era.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intraoperative adequacy of spinal decompression is typically judged by visual inspection and tactile assessment rather than objective physiologic confirmation, leaving no objective endpoint for completion. We compared outcomes before and after a single surgeon adopted routine intraoperative mechanomyography (MMG). Methods: In this retrospective single-surgeon, single-institution, era-based cohort, 600 consecutive adult spinal decompression patients were analyzed: 300 before adoption and 300 after stable 100% MMG utilization. The preadoption era used visual and tactile assessment; the postadoption era used MMG threshold-guided decompression targeted at ≤2.0 mA. The primary endpoint was 90-day unplanned return to the operating room (RTOR); confirmatory endpoints were incidental durotomy and 3-month pain. Adjusted regression controlled for demographic and procedural covariates; a post hoc classification distinguished decompression-related from nondecompression RTOR, with sparse subcategories analyzed by Fisher exact tests and a multinomial interaction test. Results: RTOR decreased from 29/300 (9.7%) to 8/300 (2.7%; adjusted OR 0.245, 95% CI 0.106-0.566, p=.001). Decompression-related RTOR decreased from 4.7% to 1.0% (p=.012) and nondecompression RTOR from 5.0% to 1.7% (p=.038); the differential reduction was not significant (interaction p=.590). Durotomy decreased from 9.7% to 2.3% (adjusted OR 0.246, p=.002), mean 3-month pain from 4.91 to 1.93 (adjusted β -3.09, p<.001), and treatment nonresponse from 45.7% to 7.3%. Conclusions: Routine MMG adoption was associated with lower RTOR, durotomy, pain, and treatment nonresponse. Because nondecompression RTOR also decreased, and case volume doubled between eras, causal attribution to MMG alone is not possible. These findings are hypothesis-generating and support prospective multicenter validation with patient-level threshold capture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.